SUBSTITUTE SERVICES TO BE SUITABLE FOR DISABLED PASSENGERS

(a) a person who provides services for the carriage of passengers by railway provides or secures the provision of substitute road services, or

(b) the Authority secures the provision of such services (under an agreement entered into in pursuance of section 202).

§
(2) In doing so the person or Authority shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the substitute road services allow disabled passengers to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort

§
(3) In the event of any failure by the person or Authority to comply with subsection (2), he or it shall be liable to pay damages in respect of any expenditure reasonably incurred, or other loss sustained, by a disabled passenger in consequence of the failure.

§
(4) The Secretary of State may by order grant exemption from subsection (2) to—

(a) any class or description of persons who provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or

(b) any particular person who provides such services, in respect of all substitute road services or any class or description of such services.

§
(5) Before making an order under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and

(b) such other representative organisations as he thinks fit.

§
(6) An order under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

§
(7) In this section "substitute road services" means services for the carriage of passengers by road which are provided where railway services have been temporarily interrupted or discontinued.

§
(8) For the purposes of this section a passenger is disabled if he has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which seriously impairs his ability to walk.").

§
The noble Lord said: This new clause is designed to ensure that where substitute road services are provided in place of rail services, the substitutes will be suitable for passengers with mobility problems. This meets an undertaking given in Committee in another place, and at Second Reading in this House. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has welcomed stronger requirements on train operators and has been consulted on the drafting of the new clause.

§
The definition of disability covers both a person with a permanent disability and a person with a short-term mobility problem such as a broken leg which affects the ability of the passenger to walk. The emphasis is on impaired mobility so it is understandable that the definition does match entirely that used for other purposes such as concessionary fares. But it is consistent in key respects.

§
This new clause is concerned with those passengers who are unable to access in safety and reasonable comfort the substitute services which have been secured. Other disabled people, for example sensory-impaired people and people with learning disabilities, are generally physically able to use the services. We would fully expect, however, that the train operators and the SRA would instruct the operators of substitute services to provide reasonable assistance to those passengers to ensure that they are able to complete their journey with confidence.

§
The new clause is not prescriptive about what type of substitute vehicle is required. The duty is simply to provide transport that is sufficient to allow the passenger to complete the journey safely and in reasonable comfort. This approach reflects the fact that it will be some time before fully accessible road vehicles are generally available. If we insisted that road vehicles must be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act regulations in the strict sense, it would be all too easy for train operators to claim that it was not reasonably practicable to procure accessible vehicles.

§
The clause will cover train operators, including the SRA when it secures the provision of substitute services. There is a power to exempt from the requirements but it is likely that this power will be used only in a limited range of cases, for example, heritage railways. The new clause provides for statutory consultation on exemptions with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The passenger will be entitled to claim damages through the courts. It is expected, however, that the more normal route by which any failings will be addressed in respect of train operating companies will be through the franchise agreements or licensing. However, a passenger who was unable to complete a journey and incurred expenses, such as hotel expenses or the hire of other transport, would be able to claim for his or her loss.

§
If disabled passengers are to have the same service as that offered to others, it is important that they can travel in confidence knowing that if substitute services are used they will be able to finish their journey safely and in reasonable comfort. I beg to move.

This is a welcome new clause. However, I am rather concerned about subsection (4) which provides that,
The Secretary of State may by order grant exemption from"—
the provisions to—
any class or description of persons who provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or(b) any particular person who provides such services,in respect of all substitute road services or any class or description of such services".
Those are very wide powers indeed, and I am concerned that their use by some future Secretary of State could negate the welcome advance, despite having to refer the regulations to the Disabled Persons
53GC
Transport Advisory Committee. Can the Minister tell me exactly what classes of person and what classes of service he had in mind to exempt?

In this respect, I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It hardly seems necessary. The authority or the person who provides a service has to do so only in so far as it is reasonable and practical. I suppose that covers the situation where the service is not set up for a period of months or there has been an accident or some special unpredictable event that has happened during the course of a journey. We have enough flexibility there for people to do their best, and my experience is that in those situations railway operators do their best.

The exemption under subsections (4)(5) and (6) are a different matter altogether. That is obviously intended to be a permanent exemption because it can be annulled only by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It relates to something that will be set up over a much longer period and applies to all sorts of people falling into a certain class. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that it does open the possibility for people to mistreat this piece of legislation in order to avoid the responsibilities that we are all grateful to see. In other words, it seems rather contradictory.

Lord Berkeley

While accepting, to some extent, what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, have said, there is another side to the matter. I welcome the fact that this clause is flexible, but again I worry as to the way in which it may be interpreted. Any noble Lord who, on a hot day, has been on a train that has developed problems—last week I was stuck on a train without air-conditioning for two-and-a-half hours—would accept being taken away by horse and cart. He or she would be less concerned with whether or not the bus provided for their journey was easily accessible. Those with mobility problems would be happy to have a rather uncomfortable lift into the coach rather than having to sit around for any length of time.

My concern is that somebody will say that there should be a park of accessible buses all the way round the country waiting for an accident to happen. Somebody in a train operating company's legal department will interpret the matter in that way. That would be an enormous extra cost, and I hope that there will be flexibility in its implementation in both directions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said. When there is an accident you want the first available transport that can take you home in whatever discomfort; it is better than staying out all night.

I too welcome this clause in principle, though I would in a way like to leave out the word "disabled" where it occurs. I do not see why all passengers, not just those who are disabled, should not be able to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort if there is a rail substitution service. However, perhaps that would be taking the matter a little too far.

54GC
Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, I assume that not all vehicles used for a substitute service will have to be wheelchair-accessible; for example, if a fleet of half a dozen buses is required they will not all have to be wheelchair-accessible. It will perhaps be possible for wheelchair passengers to go in a licensed taxi; after all, they will shortly all have to be wheelchair-accessible. Would that be sufficient to comply with the regulations?

I wish also to mention the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in relation to the exemptions under subsection (4). I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in answer to the point made on that particular aspect. However, in general terms we welcome this amendment.

Part IV of the Bill relates to Scotland, but I am a wee bit concerned that we are talking about substitute road services at a time when road transport is almost wholly devolved. I wonder whether we will have a different form of accident— that is, a turf war with the Scottish Parliament—if we try to make this kind of road transport legislation. It is more the prerogative of the Scottish Parliament. It is important that we do not have any unnecessary clashes with the Scottish Parliament; they will happen, but I do not want any extra ones. I therefore ask what is fast becoming a characteristic question from me about this as a devolution issue.

To answer the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, while roads in Scotland obviously are a devolved matter, there will be no turf war here on the duties of rail companies, because the rail companies' duties are not devolved.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, went to the nub of the matter, and in a sense echoed what had been said earlier in the discussion by some of the contributors who welcomed the amendment. It was tabled in a spirit of trying to find the appropriate compromise in what can be an expensive area for train operating companies, and yet clearly a dismaying experience for disabled people when provision is not made for them. We have tried to reach a happy medium and to ensure that we consult widely on any exemptions.

I mentioned the heritage railways as a specific example. But Members of the Committee can be assured that the exemptions will be limited and could be revoked. I stress again that the new clause provides for statutory consultation on exemptions with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. I feel it highly unlikely that any Secretary of State in future would attempt to behave in a callous way by disregarding such consultation and causing distress to disabled people.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, my understanding would be that those passengers who find themselves stranded will have help available to them. The concern is that too often that help would not be suitable for disabled people. We want to try to ensure that there is a suitable substitute vehicle available to transport disabled people home in an appropriate manner.

55GC
I hope that that covers most of the issues that have been raised. I end as I began, by echoing the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the need for flexibility in both directions. We are introducing a potentially onerous and expensive duty, although I hope not a harsh one. Trying to ensure that a suitable alternative is available for the individual is a very honourable advance for us all to make.

§
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 111 and speak to Amendments Nos. 112 to 124 to Schedule 26 and Amendment No. 133 to Schedule 27. The amendments to Schedule 26 are minor, clarificatory amendments to the tax provisions of the Bill which ensure tax neutrality on transfers to the authority and the Secretary of State from the British Railways Board. As well as tidying up some drafting, they ensure that transfers of loan relationships and trading activities are tax neutral and that transfers of assets held on lease and similar transactions do not change the tax position.

§
Amendment No. 133 is a consequential amendment to the Finance Act 1994. It deals with transfers under the Railways Act 1993 and ensures that it takes account of the establishment of the authority. I beg to move.

§Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 124:
Page 285, line 17, after ("Acts") insert ("(had the transferor incurred expenditure qualifying for allowances under Part II of the 1990 Act on the provision of the property)").Page 286, line 14, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").Page 286, line 22, at end insert—("( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the transferor (and accordingly the transferee) is to be taken to have accounted for the loan relationship in accordance with an authorised accounting method corresponding to that in accordance with which the transferee accounts for the loan relationship in the accounting period in which the transfer takes effect.").Page 290, line 9, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").Page 290, line 17, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").Page 290, line 31, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the transfer takes effect and any later time").Page 291, line 37, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").Page 292, line 35, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").Page 294, line 23, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").56GCPage 295, line 20, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").Page 295, line 28, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").Page 297, line 24, leave out ("disposal") and insert ("acquisition of the relevant interest by the transferee").Page 297, line 27, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").

(b) insert at the end ": and in this section "successor of the Board" has the same meaning as "successor of the British Railways Board" has in the Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2) Order 1999."").

§
"(1A) In subsection (1) of this section "successor of the Board" has the same meaning as "successor of the British Railways Board" has in the Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2) Order 1999."").

§
In section 41(1) of the Heathrow Express Railway Act 1991 (provisions which do not apply to services and facilities provided on Heathrow Express lines or at Heathrow Express stations), after "1968" insert "and sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act 1993".").

§Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 301, line 40, at end insert—(". In section 17 (directions requiring facility owners to enter into contracts for use of their railway facilities), after subsection (7) insert—(7A) Any reference in this section to obtaining permission to use a railway facility includes, where the facility is track, permission to connect other track to it.In section 18(9) (access contracts requiring approval of Regulator), after paragraph (a) insert—(aa) subsection (7A),".").

§
The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled simply for clarification. We wish to be sure that if, for example, a train operator agreed to build a new station facility as a condition of a replacement franchise, he would be able to connect his new station through its associated track to the wider network without being held to ransom over access charges. This has been achieved by putting beyond doubt the types of access contracts over which the Rail Regulator has powers of direction, or for which parties require the regulator's approval. These include connections to the network. I beg to move.

§Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 134:
Page 302, line 41, at end insert—("( ) In subsection (1), for "(5)" substitute "(5B)".( ) In subsections (2) and (4), for "subsection (5)" substitute "subsections (5) to (5B)".").Page 302, line 42, leave out (""section 5 above" substitute "section") and insert (""or, as the case may be, section 5 above" substitute "above or, as the case may be, section").Page 305, line 16, leave out ("10(15)(b)") and insert ("10(15)").Page 305, line 20, at end insert—

§
Where provision is made for subsections (4) to (6) of section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 (functions of Rail Passengers' Council and Rail Passengers' Committees) to apply in relation to any services or any facilities connected with any services—

(a) sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act 1993 shall not apply in relation to them unless the services are being provided under a franchise agreement, but

(b) those subsections shall not apply in relation to them if the services are being so provided.").

§Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 153, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert——("(2) In section 26 (arrangements for patrolling places where children cross roads during certain periods)—

(a) in subsection (1), omit "during periods between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon when children are so on their way,", and

(b) after that subsection insert—

(1A) Arrangements under subsection (1) above may be made for patrolling places at such times as the authority thinks fit.(3) In section 28 (power to stop vehicles at school crossings)—(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) omit "between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon", and

(ii) for "children on their way to or from school, or from one part of a school to another, are" substitute "a person is",

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) for "children are" substitute "person is", and

(ii) for "their" substitute "his", and

(c) in subsection (5)—

(i) insert "and" at the end of paragraph (a), and

(ii) omit paragraph (c) and the word "and" before it.").

§
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 137, 166 and 167. These amendments concern the school crossing patrols who do a tremendous job in relation to child safety. An amendment to the Bill was moved in another place by my honourable friend Michael Foster, the purpose of which was to allow patrols to help children of any age and to help adults across the road. Therefore, to remove those restrictions was consistent with the policy that we had set out in our integrated transport White Paper and the Government accepted that amendment. However, it did not go far enough.

§
The amendments which we now propose are to remove the restrictions on hours of operation in relation to patrols and to clarify the Commons amendment so that, for example, there can be no doubt that a disabled person in a wheelchair can be aided by a school crossing patrol. They deliver the commitments we made in the integrated transport White Paper. We have also referred to it more recently in the Road Safety Strategy issued a couple of months ago. I beg to move.

In section 240(5), the words ", or any description of persons,". In Schedule 16 —in paragraph 2(1), the words "(persons who have attained pensionable age or whose ability to walk is seriously impaired)", and paragraph 7.")

§Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 138 to 148:
Page 318, leave out lines 32 and 33.Page 319, line 42, column 3, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(b)").Page 319, line 44, column 3, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(b)").Page 320, line 10, column 3, leave out ("47(1),") and insert ("57(1),").Page 320, line 55, column 3, leave out from (""each",") to ("or,") in line 6 on page 321 and insert ("paragraph (a), in paragraph (b), the words "in the case of the Waterways Board", the words "will be so connected by rail or so situated in relation to a railway line or, as the case may be," and the words "the rail services of the Railways Board can be directly used").Page 321, line 10, column 3, leave out (""the Railways Board,",") and insert (""Railways Board, and",").

I would like to seek clarification from my noble friend about Amendment No. 149, which removes a part of Clause 41 of the Channel Tunnel Act. The part it removes relates to the application of the Central Transport Consultative Committee as it applies in relation to services and specifically as provided by the Railways Board or any subsidiary. I wonder if my noble friend would be able to tell me—or if he cannot today perhaps he could write and tell me—what are the obligations under this Bill for Eurostar services or rail freight services through the Channel Tunnel? If they were stopped tomorrow, is there any obligation on the board or its successor to keep the Eurostar services going? If there is no obligation, what would happen to the rolling stock concerned? Would it be scrapped or is there a requirement to return it to the Government?